Attention to misleading and contentious tweets in the case of Hurricane Harvey


The spread of false and misleading information through online social media is an elevated concern in emergency contexts such as natural disasters, where the on-the ground decision-making window is shorter, and the stakes can be particularly high. Misinformation that gets attention and is drawn out longer during and after such disasters potentially puts the affected population at additional risk. This research focuses on popular but ambiguous and contentious narratives transmitted via Twitter during Hurricane Harvey. Two most talked about contentious narratives consisted of (1) government agencies putting undocumented immigrants at risk and (2) decisions about evacuation. They depict the process of debunking, competing narratives, and political ideology that have kept the stories alive. Our findings suggest the following: that government and reporters play important roles in stemming the spread of contentious or false information; ambiguous and contentious narratives remain in the conversation longer, specific debunking works faster and reaches a larger audience than general or confused debunking; and the lack of coordination of messaging online and on the ground as well as among different government agencies may threaten the timely and accurate delivery of disaster responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  1. Abdullah NA, Nishioka D, Tanaka Y, Murayama Y (2017) Why I retweet? Exploring user’s perspective on decision-making of information spreading during disasters. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences

  2. Alam F, Ofli F, Imran M, Aupetit M (2018) A twitter tale of three Hurricanes: Harvey, Irma, and Maria. ArXiv:1805.05144 [Cs].

  3. Andrews CA, Fichet ES, Ding Y, Spiro ES, Starbird K (2016) Keeping up with the tweet-dashians: the impact of official- accounts on online rumoring. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing-CSCW’16, pp 451–464.

  4. Arif A, Shanahan K, Chou FJ, Dosouto Y, Starbird K, Spiro E (2016) How information snowballs: exploring the role of exposure in online rumor propagation. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing-CSCW’16, pp 465–476.

  5. Babcock M, Beskow DM, Carley KM (2019) Different faces of false: the spread and curtailment of false information in the black panther twitter discussion. J Data Inf Quality 11(4):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bovet A, Makse HA (2019) Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nat Commun 10(1):7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen R, Sakamoto Y (2013) Perspective matters: sharing of crisis information in social media. In: 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 2033–2041.

  8. Chen S, Mao J, Li G, Ma C, Cao Y (2019) Uncovering sentiment and retweet patterns of disaster-related tweets from a spatiotemporal perspective–a case study of Hurricane Harvey. Telematics Inform 47:101326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. CNN (2017)

  10. Conroy NJ, Rubin VL, Chen Y (2015) Automatic deception detection: methods for finding fake news: automatic deception detection: methods for finding fake news. Proc As Inf Sci Technol 52(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dailey D, Starbird K (2014). Visible skepticism: community vetting after Hurricane Irene. In: ISCRAM

  12. Darr JP, Cate SD, Moak DS (2019) Who’ll stop the rain? repeated disasters and attitudes toward government. Soc Sci Q.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghenai A, Mejova Y (2017) Catching zika fever: application of crowdsourcing and machine learning for tracking health misinformation on twitter. ArXiv:1707.03778 [Cs].

  14. Grinberg N, Joseph K, Friedland L, Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D (2019) Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363(6425):374–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J (2019) Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci Adv 5(1):eaau4586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huang B, Carley KM (2020) Discover your social identity from what you tweet: a content based approach. ArXiv:2003.01797 [Cs].

  17. Hughes AL, St. Denis LAA, Palen L, Anderson KM (2014) Online public communications by police & fire services during the 2012 Hurricane Sandy. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems-CHI’14, pp 1505–1514.

  18. Hunt K, Wang B, Zhuang J (2020) Misinformation debunking and cross-platform information sharing through Twitter during Hurricanes Harvey and Irma: a case study on shelters and ID checks. Nat Hazards 103(1):861–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hurricane Harvey Preparations. (2017). Retrieved on November 24, 2020

  20. KHOU (2017)

  21. Lazer DMJ, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM, Menczer F, Metzger MJ, Nyhan B, Pennycook G, Rothschild D, Schudson M, Sloman SA, Sunstein CR, Thorson EA, Watts DJ, Zittrain JL (2018) The science of fake news. Science 359(6380):1094–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu X, Nourbakhsh A, Li Q, Fang R, Shah S (2015) Real-time rumor debunking on twitter. In: Proc ACM int on conference on information and knowledge management, pp 1867–1870

  23. Liu W, Lai C-H, Xu WW (2018) Tweeting about emergency: a semantic network analysis of government organizations’ social media messaging during Hurricane Harvey. Public Relations Rev 44(5):807–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Manning C, Raghavan P, Schuetze H (2009) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mosinzova V, Fabian B, Ermakova T, Baumann A (2019) Fake news, conspiracies and myth debunking in social media—a literature survey across disciplines. SSRN Electr J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mourão RR, Robertson CT (2019) Fake news as discursive integration: an analysis of sites that publish false, misleading, hyperpartisan and sensational information. J Stud.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. NOAA (2018) Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables updated.

  28. NOAA (2019) Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: table of events | national centers for environmental information (NCEI).

  29. Shin J, Jian L, Driscoll K, Bar F (2018) The diffusion of misinformation on social media: temporal pattern, message, and source. Comput Hum Behav 83:278–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sobel RS, Leeson PT (2006) Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina: a public choice analysis. Public Choice 127(1–2):55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Starbird K, Dailey D, Mohamed O, Lee G, Spiro ES (2018) Engage early, correct more: how journalists participate in false rumors online during crisis events. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems-CHI’18, pp 1–12.

  32. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380):1146–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zannettou S, Sirivianos M, Blackburn J, Kourtellis N (2019) The web of false information: rumors, fake news, hoaxes, clickbait, and various other shenanigans. J Data Inf Quality 11(3):1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zeng L, Starbird K, Spiro ES (2016) Rumors at the speed of light? Modeling the rate of rumor transmission during crisis. In: Proc Hawaii int conference on system sciences (HICSS), pp 1969–1978

  35. Zubiaga A, Ji H (2014) Tweet but verify: epistemic study of information verification on twitter. Soc Netw Anal Min 4:163

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to So-Min Cheong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest presented in this work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheong, SM., Babcock, M. Attention to misleading and contentious tweets in the case of Hurricane Harvey. Nat Hazards 105, 2883–2906 (2021).

Download citation


  • Social Media
  • Disaster management
  • Hurricane Harvey
  • Misinformation